Vaello Madero

READ MORE

Tuaua v. United States

READ MORE

Fitisemanu v. United States

READ MORE

ACTIVE CASES

Borja v. Nago

PAST CASES

Fitisemanu v. United States
Tuaua v. United States
Segovia v. United States
Rosselló v. United States
Vaello Madero




 

 

Back to top

 

Borja v. Nago

The right to vote in the United States should not depend on where you live—Borja v. Nago (formerly Reeves v. Nago) is a federal voting rights lawsuit that puts this principle to the test for citizens living in U.S. territories.

Under federal and state overseas voting laws, residents of a state who move to certain U.S. territories or foreign countries can continue voting for President and voting representation in Congress by absentee ballot. But citizens living in other U.S. territories cannot. Right to Democracy has joined with six U.S. citizens in Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands to challenge federal and state laws that deny them absentee voting rights enjoyed by citizens literally anywhere else in the world (and even outer space!).  

Ben_Borja_Navy_Photo.JPGVicente "Ben" T. Borja is a 28-year veteran of the United States Navy. Mr. Borja has served on multiple tours, lived in Hawaii, and established residency there, but had to relocate to Guam after his wife's cancer treatment was unfortunately unsuccessful. Even though Mr. Borja was part of the draft, resided in a state, and served for the United States, he has no right to vote for the President of the United States as a resident of Guam. Mr. Borja is not even allowed to vote by absentee ballot in Hawaii. Like many others, Mr. Borja is of the opinion that if he is eligible for the draft, he should also be eligible to vote.                                                                                                          

Under the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) and Hawaii's Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act (Hawaii UMOVA), a former resident of Hawaii who is now a resident of the Northern Mariana Islands or a foreign country can continue voting for President and voting representation in Congress in Hawaii by absentee ballot.  But plaintiffs – each former residents of Hawaii – have lost full enjoyment of their right to vote by virtue of living in Guam or the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The lawsuit is part of a broader effort by Right to Democracy to advance democracy and self-determination in U.S. territories. Right to Democracy does not take a position on political status - that is for the people of each territory to decide. But when federal or state laws discriminate to unconstitutionally deny residents of U.S. territories their right to vote, courts can and should intervene. 

Ninth Circuit Filings

 

District Court Filings

Additional Resources and Advocacy Opportunities

  • Watch Senator Elizabeth Warren stand up for voting rights in U.S. territories and call the challenged discrimination "absurd" here.

 

Back to top

 

Fitisemanu v. United States

John Fitisemanu is a proud passport-holding, tax-paying American; But Not Recognized As a U.S. Citizen Because of Where He Was Born on U.S. Soil.

John Fitisemanu was born in American Samoa - a U.S. territory since 1900. As a result, he is denied the right to vote in Utah based on a discriminatory federal law that purports to label him as a "national, but not a citizen, of the United States." Mr. Fitisemanu, and others born in American Samoa, are expressly labeled as second-class Americans - federal policy requires that his U.S. passport include a disclaimer in all capital letters that “THE BEARER IS A UNITED STATES NATIONAL AND NOT A UNITED STATES CITIZEN.” 

Mr. Fitisemanu and other Utah residents born in American Samoa (Pale and Rosavita Tuli pictured), along with the Southern Utah Pacific Islander Coalition, are now defending their right to citizenship in court.

The plaintiffs in Fitisemanu v. United States argue that Congress does not have the power to redefine the Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship to treat those born in U.S. territories as second-class Americans. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment unequivocally guarantees citizenship to persons born on U.S. soil, whether born in a state, territory, or the District of Columbia. They also argue it is time to overrule the Insular Cases, a series of racist Supreme Court cases that established a doctrine of "separate and unequal" for residents of U.S. territories and have been relied on to deny recognition of birthright citizenship in U.S. territories. Justice Gorsuch recently declared "that the Insular Cases rest on a rotten foundation," with Justice Sotomayor calling them "odious and wrong."

The United States argues that Congress has the power to turn birthright citizenship on and off in U.S. territories. Elected officials from American Samoa support the U.S. position that questions of citizenship in U.S. territories are up to Congress, while officials from other U.S. territories argue that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution and that the Insular Cases should be overruled. 

Plaintiffs are represented by Equally American, a non-profit that advocates for equality and civil rights in U.S. territories, attorneys at Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLP, and Charles V. Ala’ilima, a prominent American Samoan attorney.

In June 2021, a divided panel of the Tenth Circuit reversed Judge Waddoups landmark 2019 ruling in favor of Mr. Fitisemanu and his fellow plaintiffs. The Fitisemanu plaintiffs are seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bottom line: If you are born on U.S. soil, citizenship is a right, not a privilege. 

U.S. Supreme Court (Docket)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Panel

U.S. District Court for the District of Utah

Press Coverage

Other Resources

 

Photo Credit: Keil Creations

 

Back to top

 

Tuaua v. United States

Lene Tuaua is a proud American.

Lene_Blue_Shirt_with_Flags.jpg

But because he was born in American Samoa, the federal government does not recognize him as a citizen.  Instead, he is labeled with the subordinate status of “non-citizen national.”

American Samoa has been a part of the United States for 112 years.  It has the highest rate of military service of any jurisdiction in America, yet Americans born there are required to naturalize in order to be recognized as citizens.

Mr. Tuaua, along with four other people born in American Samoa and the Samoan Federation of America, is defending his family’s right to citizenship in federal court. 

In 2016, an 8-Justice Supreme Court denied review in the case, leaving the issue of citizenship unresolved.  Counsel in the case included Equally American, Theodore B. Olson, who as argued more than 60 cases before the Supreme Court, and prominent American Samoan attorney Charles V. Ala'ilima.

Citizenship is a right, not a privilege. 

  • Meet the Plaintiffs.  Learn more about how Mr. Tuaua and the other plaintiffs are defending the right to citizenship.
  • About the Case.  Learn more about the case, including links to court filings.
  • Share Your Story. Have you been denied citizenship? Tell us your story.
  • SUPPORT.  Donate now to support equal citizenship in U.S. territories.  

 

Back to top

 

Segovia v. United States

Segovia v. United States is a federal voting rights lawsuit which seeks to expand the right to vote in U.S. territories by arguing that the right to vote as an American should not depend on where you live.

Ballot_box_shadow.jpg

Equally American represents six U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands who are challenging federal and state laws that deny them the right to vote for President and voting representation in Congress while protecting full enjoyment of the right to vote for citizens living in other U.S. territories as well as in foreign countries.  Guam-based Veterans organization, Iraq Afghanistan and Persian Gulf Veterans of the Pacific, and the League of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands are also plaintiffs in the case.

c6406ec7-737b-48a2-9757-c94e01565531.jpgLead plaintiff Luis Segovia, a U.S. citizen who lives in Guam with his family, served an 18 month tour in Iraq with the U.S. Army, a 12 month tour in Afghanistan with the Illinois National Guard, and a 10 month tour in Afghanistan as part of the Guam National Guard.  In Iraq, he helped provide security for the 2005 Iraqi elections.  He was deployed on his second tour to Afghanistan just months after the 2012 presidential elections, unable to vote for President.  Read more about the other plaintiffs in the complaint.

Under the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) and Illinois’ Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (“MOVE”) law, a former resident of Illinois who is now a resident of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, or a foreign country can continue voting for President and voting representation in Congress in Illinois by absentee ballot.  But plaintiffs – each a former resident of Illinois – have lost full enjoyment of their right to vote by virtue of living in Puerto Rico, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Neil Weare, President of Equally American, provides a further overview of the case for The Huffington Post.

Watch Senator Elizabeth Warren stand up for voting rights in U.S. territories and call the challenged discrimination "absurd" here.

The lawsuit is part of a broader effort to advocate for full voting rights for every American, whether one lives in a State, Territory, or the District of Columbia.  To show your support, sign our Equal Rights Petition now at www.RighttoDemocracy.org.

We are working to bring this important case to the Supreme Court, but we need your help to do so. Help us advance voting rights in the territories and support our appeal in Segovia v. United States by donating to our CrowdJustice page.

Case Filings

Supreme Court of the United States (docket here)

U.S. Circuit Court for the Seventh Circuit

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Press Coverage

Other Resources

 

Back to top

 

Rosselló v. United States

Nearly 4 million citizens living in U.S. territories – a population greater than 21 states and larger than the five smallest states combined – are denied the right to vote for President and voting representation in Congress simply because of where they happen to live. This includes more than 100,000 veterans and active duty service members living in U.S. territories. At the same time, decisions made by the federal government impacting residents of U.S. territories can literally mean life or death, as demonstrated by federal recovery efforts in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands following Hurricanes Irma and Maria.

Equally American is representing leaders from Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands to argue that this is not just morally wrong, it is a violation of international law. In March 2018, Equally American filed an amicus brief on behalf of current and former elected officials from these areas (see list below) in support of a case brought by former Puerto Rico Governor Pedro Rosselló before the Organization of American States Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Rosselló v. United States argues that by denying U.S. citizens in the territories voting representation in the federal government, the United States is violating its international law obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and other international agreements. The case was originally filed in 2006 but is only now reaching the merits. Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló and Congresswoman Jenniffer González have also filed a letter in support of the case.

The amicus brief puts in context the historical relationship the United States has with Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, highlighting the impact decisions made by the federal government have on the daily lives of U.S. citizens living in these areas. The brief also emphasizes the proud tradition of military service in each of these territories, where casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan range from 3-4 times the national average.

Rosselló v. United States follows Statehood Solidarity Committee v. United States, a similar case filed by advocates for equal rights in the District of Columbia in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ruled in 2003 that the denial of voting representation in Congress for residents of D.C. violated the United States’ international law commitments.

The Commission is holding a hearing in Rosselló on October 5, 2018. 

Amici include:

  • The Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Member of Congress representing Guam

  • The Hon. Stacey Plaskett, Member of Congress representing the U.S. Virgin Islands

  • The Hon. Gregorio Kilili Sablan, Member of Congress the Northern Mariana Islands

  • The Hon. Eddie Baza Calvo, Governor of Guam

  • The Hon. Carl T.C. Gutierrez, former Governor of Guam

  • The Hon. Charles W. Turnbull, former Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands

  • The Hon. John DeJong, Jr., former Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands

  • The Hon. Donna M. Christian-Christensen, former Congresswoman representing the U.S. Virgin Islands

Relevant Case Materials

Additional case materials may be obtained by contacting Orlando Vidal, Counsel for Rosselló Petitioners, at [email protected]

 

Back to top

 

Vaello Madero

Supreme Court | Supreme Court Free to use - please link to T… | Flickr

For the Spanish version of this page, please click here.

The Supplemental Social Security (SSI) program is one of our Nation's most successful social safety net programs, recognizing the inherent dignity of millions of the most vulnerable, low-income Americans who are aged, blind, or disabled by providing them with a basic income. However, while these critical benefits are taken for granted in most American communities, they are not available to otherwise eligible residents of most U.S. territories for no other reason than where they happen to live. As a result, unless something changes these vulnerable U.S. citizens will be shortchanged more than $23 billion over the next ten years, resulting in life and death consequences. 

This discrimination isn't just wrong, it's unconstitutional. 

In 2012, after suffering a debilitating illness, José Luis Vaello-Madero began receiving SSI disability benefits while living in New York State. The following year, he moved to Puerto Rico to be closer to family. Unaware that his change in address meant he was no longer eligible for SSI, he continued to receive SSI benefits directly in a bank account that had been set up for that purpose by a non-profit organization in New York. In 2016, after he registered for Social Security retirement benefits, the Social Security Administration realized that he now lived in Puerto Rico, and ceased SSI payments. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Mr. Vaello-Madero, invoking a criminal statute to recover $28,081 in SSI benefits he had received while living in Puerto Rico. With the help of pro bono lawyers, he raised as a defense that it is unconstitutional to deny SSI to U.S. citizens solely because they live in a territory rather than a State.

After the court appointed pro bono counsel, Mr. Vaello Madero argued that SSI discrimination against residents of U.S. territories violates the Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection. The district court and a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed, concluding that discrimination against residents of Puerto Rico with respect to the SSI program fails judicial review under any standard. 

In March, the Supreme Court rejected the U.S. Department of Justice's request to summarily reverse the unanimous decisions below and granted full review. Briefing in the case will be complete by September 2021, with oral argument to follow on November 9, 2021.

Mr. Vaello Madero is represented pro bono by the law firm Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, with partner Hermann Ferré serving as Counsel of Record, and Juan Perla as lead associate. Other team members include associates Robert Groot and Andrew Larkin.

Equally American does not represent Mr. Vaello Madero but is participating as amici and supporting his case and efforts to achieve parity in SSI funding through a broad range of advocacy, both inside and outside the Supreme Court.

Case Filings

Supreme Court of the United States (Docket Here)

Merits Stage

Certiorari Stage

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 

U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico 

Press Coverage

Other Resources

 

Back to top